Is Malaysia's history all about semantics? A lesson on Sept 16!

Tweet

ONE MAN'S MEAT By PHILIP GOLINGAI

The debate over when is Malaysia Day, Aug 31 or Sept 16, will continue as there are still differing views. But one thing is certain – there are Malaysians who are very passionate about our history. 
Image via Wikipedia

Last week I had my Zainal Kling moment. In case there are those who are clueless on the recent big issue concerning Malaysia, here’s a summary.

Datuk Prof Dr Zainal Kling of the National Professors Council stirred a historical controversy when he declared that Malaya was never a British colony but only a “protectorate”.

Last week, in this column, I wrote an article titled “A lesson on Sept 16” (see below).

It was a history lesson that the Federation of Malaya, not Malaysia, was created in 1957. And that Sabah and Sarawak did not join Malaysia – they formed the country together with the then Malaya and Singapore on Sept 16, 1963.

That was that, I thought. Until I received brickbats mostly from my fellow Sabahans. Though most comments were good-hearted ribbing, I felt as if I was a snake that bit its own tail.

There were jocular warnings that Sabah will use its special immigration power to bar me from entering my state.

There were also warnings that went for the jugular. I was accused of living in Kuala Lumpur too long.
Factually correct, as I’ve been living in Greater Kuala Lumpur for more than 25 years. But parochially incorrect as you can take Philip out of Sabah, but you can’t take Sabah out of Philip.

And it was as if I did not live through Parti Bersatu Sabah’s ‘Sabah for Sabahans’ political era.

Factually, there was nothing incorrect about my article. It is just that I neglected to mention something that is close to the heart of many Sabahans.

The first brickbat was from a reader who may or may not be a Sabahan or a Sarawakian.

Sonny68mak emailed: “If I recall correctly my history lessons, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore declared independence on Aug 31, 1963.

“They could not form Malaysia on that day because they were waiting for the official referendum results to be declared by the United Nations which was delayed by Jakarta and Manila’s protests at the UN,” wrote the reader, who could even be a Singaporean.

“So therefore the Borneo states independence was effective Aug 31, 1963. They formed Malaysia on Sept 16 as two-weeks-old independent sovereign states.”

“Please ask your Prof friend to recheck the facts so that the public is not confused.”

Fair comment, I thought. As if I was debating the issue, I would have taken a similar stand.

However, just to show him that I was not a hack, I replied: “Yes, I did check that fact with the Prof.”

“I told him for example, North Borneo gained independence on Aug 31, 1963 so it must have been an independent country,” I wrote.

“He said ‘no’ as even though the British granted independence to North Borneo on that day, it still administrated Sabah.”

As soon as I sent that email, I received an SMS from a Sabahan who is a veteran journalist. Though the timing of his SMS was coincidental, it was as if he sensed my “betrayal” in cyberspace.

The 40-something journalist SMS-ed: “I beg to differ. On Aug 31, 1963, the Union Jack came down and the Sabah flag went up. Sabah and Sarawak were independent nations until Sept 16, 1963. You’re selling propaganda. Ha ha”.

Immediately I called him. And after 30 minutes we agreed that history is about semantics. And, quoting Winston Churchill, “History is written by the victors”.

Then I received a call from a Penangite who is more Sabahan than me. Well, he has lived in Sabah for more than 20 years.

“We can buang negeri (kick you out of Sabah) you!” he said.

“Your article missed the point. You should have written that Sabah was a country before it formed Malaysia! And you should have written that 1/3 of Sabahans wanted to form Malaysia, 1/3 did not want to and 1/3 were undecided.”

“You’ve also missed the point that it was four equal nations (Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore) forming the Federation of Malaysia.”

“But, but, but,” I replied. “The point of my article is just to discuss Sept 16.” “No, you missed the point!” he said.

“Do you know that Sept 16 is also Lee Kuan Yew’s birthday?” I said, just to change the topic.

However sharp the comments I received throughout the day, it was delightful to know that 48 years after the fact, Sabahans are still passionate about their history.

Still, it made me feel as if I had sold Labuan to the Feds. Wonder where’s Zainal Kling? I need a hug. And some historical semantics.

A lesson on Sept 16

ONE MAN'S MEAT by PHILIP GOLINGAI

The federation of Malaya, not Malaysia, was created in 1957. Sabah and Sarawak did not join Malaysia – they formed the country together with the then Malaya and Singapore on Sept 16, 1963.

ON AUG 31, I spent my Mer-deka Day holiday tweeting history lessons. I found certain historical inaccuracies on my Twitter timeline as annoying as – to misquote a tweet from @ATM2U – seeing a straight man eat cupcake.

For example, one of Malaysia’s tycoons tweeted: “Independence day for Malaysia today.”

As a Sabahan, I just had to correct him even though he is worth a billion times more than me. So @PhilipGolingai admonished: “Sir, independence day for Malaya. Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963.”

Then someone – not the billionaire – tweeted: “Why Singapore not celebrating Malaya’s Indepen-dence day?” History was definitely not her favourite subject.

I replied: “When Malaya dec-lared Merdeka, Singapore was under the British. On Sept 16, 1963, Singapore, Malaya, Sabah & Sarawak formed Malaysia.”

My colleague @ChiaYingTheStar (Lim Chia Ying) tweeted: “How can a tv station say Happy Birthday to M’sia on Aug 31?? My gosh, no wonder kids can never learn real facts?”

On Merdeka Day, Faridah Stephens, daughter of one of Malaysia’s founding fathers, Tun Fuad Stephens (Sabah Chief Minister), reminded her Peninsu­lar Malaysian friends of our country’s history.

“(Some of) my friends wished Happy 54th Birthday Malaysia. They always say Malaysia. But it is not Malaysia’s independence but Malaya’s,” she lamented.

On Facebook, Faridah watched a video clip of Negaraku sung in Chinese. The rendition was “beautiful” but the ending of the video was a “dampener”.

“Alamak, I thought, when I saw ‘Happy 54th Birthday Malaysia’ at the end,” she said.

How did her friends’ respond to her reminder?  “Some people went quiet,” she said, laughing heartily.
      
Some Malaysians mistake Aug 31 for Malaysia’s birthday, according to Faridah, because “we tend to be West (Peninsular) Malaysia-centric”.

“Many forget that Malaysia did not exist until 1963. Malaysia was not created in 1957. Sabah and Sarawak did not join Malaysia, they formed the country,” she said, adding that “I’m just stating a historical fact.”

To get my historical facts right, I called my old classmate, then a history buff, at La Salle secondary school in Tanjung Aru, Sabah.

“Why are there Malaysians who confuse Hari Merdeka as Malay-sia’s birthday?” I asked Danny Wong Tze Ken, a history professor in Universiti Malaya.

Wong lectured me on the birth of Malaysia. Here’s a summary: On Aug 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya was established. It was expanded into the Federation of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963. The country became larger with the inclusion of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. And in 1965, Singapore left.

“If you think of the day for independence for Malaysia, then Sept 16, is logical for Sabahans and Sarawakians as that was when both states achieved independence, in 1963. But for the people of Peninsular Malaysia clearly it was Aug 31, 1957, as that was when Tunku Abdul Rahman declared Merdeka,” Wong ex-plained.

“So when is Malaysia’s birthday?” I asked.

“The best answer is to take the case of the United States. Their independence day is July 4, 1776, even though at that time there were only 13 colonies. Although the rest of the United States was incorporated only later, all the 50 states observe July 4 as Indepen-dence Day,” he said.

“So when is Malaysia’s birthday?” I asked again.

“As a newly formed Federation of Malaysia the birthday of Malaysia will be Sept 16 whereas the Independence Day of the country remains on Aug 31,” he said.

Wong said over the years, Sept 16 was no longer celebrated as Malaysia Day.

“In Sabah it was celebrated as the TYT’s (Governor’s) birthday. And Sabahans wondered why that day was then celebrated as the TYT’s birthday and not as Malaysia Day,” he added.

“It was only last year that Sept 16 was declared a public holiday to commemorate the formation of Malaysia.,” the historian said.

So, on Friday, if you are on Twitter, don’t forget to tweet “Happy 48th Birthday Malaysia!”

Related posts:

The decline of the West

Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need truly national!

British Massacre - Batang Kali Victims win UK court scrutiny 

PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, In the spotlight for wrong reason?

Malaysia Day: Let’s celebrate Sept 16 for its significance!

Malaya, look east to boost Malaysian racial unity!    

Malaysia's future: A time for Malay renewal ! 

Malaysia still in pursuit of full independence  
The true meaning of independence 
Reviving our winning ways    

Winds of change blowing in Malaysia; Dawn of a new era?

Tweet

Winds of change blowing

BEHIND THE HEADLINES  By BUNN NAGARA

THE relief that greeted the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 and other repressive laws would be abolished was difficult to define for several reasons.

First, nobody expected Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to have gone so far in throwing off decades of unjust laws. When it happened, it took time to sink in, after more than a generation of having to endure those laws.
Image by KamalSelle via Flickr
Second, mention of two new laws to replace the ISA tempered the plaudits from critical observers. Would that mean returning to square one through a bait-and-switch?

Third, those who had banked on the Government retaining the ISA in some revised form were caught unawares. Regardless of their own views of it, they insisted there would be little change, seeking to vindicate themselves and “save face”.

All these have been efforts to adjust to a new national reality post-ISA. A fourth reaction comes from political opportunism: robbed of their thunder, the Opposition tried to diminish the significance of the Government’s move.

To others, however, the state’s abandonment of these repressive laws is both historic and definitive.
Of all the Governments that had presided over the ISA through the decades, Prime Minister Najib’s has been the one bold enough to do the decent thing of abolishing it.

It is not because this is possible only now since Malaysia no longer needs the ISA, because the country has not needed it for a long time already. Besides, some close to the seat of power still insist such preventive detention laws are needed.

It is untypical of any government to renounce a sweeping law that gives unparalleled powers to it. Dumping the ISA not only took guts, it showed a rare selflessness that placed actual national interest above perceived (by some) national security interest.

Doubts over the two new laws to replace the ISA may be natural but unwarranted. Both laws would relate to Article 149 of the Federal Constitution, which would shift more responsibility on preventive action from the Cabinet to Parliament, with emphasis on any use of these laws against a “substantial body of persons” rather than isolated individuals.

Malaysian parliamentarians have grown more alienated from the ISA than ever, even before the 2008 general election that made an unprecedented number of Opposition candidates MPs. Also, the aversion to draconian laws among Barisan Nasional MPs is far greater than any pro-ISA sentiment among Pakatan Rakyat MPs.

There is therefore no going back to anything like the ISA now. Any return to the spirit, if not the letter, of the ISA can only backfire badly on the Government and discredit it politically.

Until recently, there was the prospect of merely tweaking the ISA. But it soon dawned that simply twiddling the dials of a bad law would not make it good.

The toughest part of the journey towards abolishing the ISA is over. That was not in Parliament, the Opposition or the public, but in places closer to the Government, including some governmental agencies and NGOs.

Activists tempting ISA arrests may want credit for piling on the pressure until its final annulment. However, the opposite is more likely: raucous activism helped to make the ISA seem useful, even indispensable, while also weakening arguments for its abolition.

The authoritarian mentality sees any threat or challenge to the status quo as grounds for using greater force, not less. And such a mindset has hitherto had its hold on the levers of power such as the ISA.

For now, the case remains to be made as to why the two proposed laws are needed, what they should entail, and how their operation can respect civil liberties. Transparency would help public support for them, or at least mitigate any animosity.

The scheduled abolition of the ISA and other repressive laws has meant raised expectations of a new era of civil liberties. Law enforcement and maintenance of public order would then depend more on informed consent than submission or capitulation.

The implications place the ball in the court of key national institutions: Parliament, the judiciary and the police. They need to respond to signal assent, since they stand to benefit.

Parliament should exercise its lawful prerogatives to the fullest extent the political transformation affords. This begins and ends with every parliamentarian acting in his or her legitimate capacity.

The judiciary should assert its constitutional role by acting vigorously in concert with other major national institutions. It should no longer shy from a judicious activism that serves the national interests.

The police stand to gain the most from this push to enhance investigative norms, focus on criminal intent, seek admissible evidence and develop standard operating procedures instead of relying on non-contestable shortcuts like the ISA. Moving away from easy catch-all measures like ISA arrests and detentions can also improve the work ethic and public image of the force.

This aspect of the political transformation is an assurance that Malaysia’s development is also political and social, not just economic. It enables the country to move ahead of others in the region that may be more developed only economically.

For Malaysia itself, it is a large step towards Vision 2020, most of whose nine development objectives are not economic but political and social. No nation aiming to be fully developed can neglect them.

The small-minded may scoff at the transformation Najib announced on Friday. And only the mean-spirited would refuse to give credit for the new direction.

To say all this is mere election fluff ignores the fact that it is neither fluff nor as shortlived as an election campaign. To insist it is only a political move forgets that dismissing it is just as political.

Besides, if the ISA had been initiated and executed for political reasons, it should not be unnatural for its annulment to be so as well.

Dawn of a new era

ON THE BEAT By WONG CHUN WAI

Najib deserves credit for his move to reform some of the country’s most unpopular laws.

IT was the best gift for Malaysians on a special day. It is also a reminder that the nation has grown up and that we should move forward, leaving our baggage behind.

In a nutshell, the Prime Minister has stepped out of the shadows of his predecessors. It is a major step into the future. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak couldn’t have chosen a better day to make the announcement to do away with some of the country’s most unpopular laws.

It surely has not been easy. When bits of news filtered out about his Malaysia Day speech, there were doubts as to how far he would go.

Those who were privy to inner-circle discussions on how the speech would be crafted crossed their fingers and hoped there would be no last minute changes.

After all, as a politician, the Prime Minister has to balance the needs of the conservatives, right wingers and liberals within his party and also the Barisan Nasional coalition.

The PM understands fully how much the world has changed. The global political landscape has been altered drastically and the lessons to learn are that if leaders cannot change, the people will change them. There is plenty to learn from history, some very recent too.

The more conservative in Umno are still grappling with the changes, preferring to hold on to something which they are familiar and comfortable with. They are trying hard to understand where Najib is taking Malaysia to.

The younger ones, while looking apprehensively at the lack of changes in Umno, have tried hard to push, worried that the country’s ruling party could be losing its connection with the Twitter and Facebook generation. It’s not wrong to say that the PM has been watching, listening and feeling it all over the last three years.

On Aug 28, this scribe wrote that Najib’s call for greater democratic space, including doing away with censorship laws and setting up a Parliamentary Select Committee to review electoral laws, was just a prelude to his address on Sept 16.

I wrote that “it is almost certain that he will expand on democratic reforms with an outline of the changes he wants to implement in Malaysia. It won’t be promises but changes that would be set out in black and white.

“The fresh democratic reforms will surprise even his critics, particularly those who are pushing for a greater civil society.

“In short, the new democracy that he wants to see would recognise the calls by Malaysians. It is the Middle Malaysia that he wants to address. He will say that yes, he hears these voices.”

But even this writer was surprised at how far he was prepared to push. I dared not commit myself to put into words that he would repeal the Internal Security Act, but Najib has proven his doubters and critics wrong. He proved that he walked the talk.

As expected, everyone is trying to claim credit for the changes. The Opposition, still reeling from the shock, has said these would not have happened without their pressure and protests.

Then there are the usual cynics.

I think the point is this: It does not matter who is right, but what is right. It does not matter who did it, so long as the right thing gets done. Malaysians cannot be partisan on issues that affect us all.

Najib deserves credit for having the courage to take the bold steps. His New Democracy thrust is certain to continue.

The ISA will be repealed, no one should even doubt it anymore. An Anti-Terrorism Act – specifically for terrorists and not for political opponents, as in Britain and the United States – is likely to take over.

The Police Act would be redefined and possibly the right to assemble, which could be made clearer by designating places, time and how gatherings should be done.

An example to look at is Hong Kong, where night protests are directed to specific roads that would have little impact on businesses. Even then, gatherings are allowed on only one side of the road so that traffic can continue to flow on the other side.

In New York, there is a designated spot not far from the United Nations building for protest gatherings. A spot could be set up not far from the Parliament for similar purposes.

As in football matches in Britain, where police resources are used to safeguard public safety, organisers of protest gatherings in stadiums could be asked to put up deposits for police security and possible damages.

But the Printing Presses and Publications Act is still a thorn on the side for the media. Najib has taken the first step to abolishing this much hated law by allowing a one-off permit without the requirement for annual renewal. The Government must commit itself to a total abolishment, however.

An independent media council to be run by editors will finally be formed after 54 years of independence, and repealing the law would certainly be on the agenda of journalists. After all, no one needs a permit to start a blog or an online news portal, so why impose a permit for print?

The reforms have left a feel-good feeling but the Prime Minister has to follow up with an equally impactful Budget speech. All these reforms are good but they won’t put food on our tables.

Ordinary Malaysians are worried about the rising cost of living and middle income Malaysians are hit the most by monthly tax deductions.

In the rural areas of Sabah and Sarawak, where food and fuel need to be transported into the interior, the costs are even more enormous.

Malaysians want to hear how the Government intends to help them face the economic uncertainties, the spiralling cost of food and how to be confident about the future.

Malaysians are not expecting their Government to adopt a populist approach of promising the sun and the moon, which will bankrupt the nation. But they want the Government to be equally responsible in sharing the burden by cutting out excessive financial waste and leaks.

Najib’s challenge would be to balance the budget in the face of a slowing economy and at the same time appease the people ahead of a general election.

The Budget Speech is on Oct 7. Can Malaysians expect the Big Day to be soon after the PM has announced his economic plans for the country?

Related posts:
Towards a brave new Malaysia, keep lobbying and pushing for change!
Changes in Malaysia's horizon; Keep the momentum up!

Up Close and Personal with Steve Forbes

Tweet

By TEE LIN SAY and JOHN LOH starbiz@thestar.com.my

BORN: July 18, 1947
MARITAL STATUS: Married with 5 daughters.
Just celebrated his 40 th anniversary
HIGHEST QUALIFICATION: B.A in History from
Princet on in 1970
CAREER: Editor-In-chief of Forbes media,
president and CEO of Forbes Inc
FAVOURITE FOOD: Lamb chop, french fries
and cheese burgers. All the things that are bad!
FAVOURITE PLACE: Bicycle riding and
collecting letters and original manuscripts from
Winston Churchill, among others.
RELIGION: Presbyterian
POLITICAL PARTY: Republican

STEVE Forbes probably knows of the familiar Chinese saying that wealth does not pass three generations. Whether he believes it or not, given the onslaught traditional media have been facing in recent years, one wonders if that ominous saying has more than a tinge of truth to it.

He has grounds to be worried, though. The Forbes family business is now into its third generation. The publishing business was started by B.C. Forbes who then handed it over to his son Malcom Forbes and is currently under the stewardship of Steve Forbes.

Judging by the statistics, Forbes is taking on the proverb head on.

The company's flagship publication, Forbes, is the United States' leading business magazine with a circulation of more than 900,000. Forbes, Forbes Asia and the company's licensee editions together reach a worldwide audience of more than six million readers. The circulation of Forbes' international editions is 590,500.

“The tools have changed tremendously because of the Web. However, the purpose remains the same. We were the early embracers of the Web, and we did not confuse purpose and method. That is why in the United States there is no magazine that has done as well as ours on the Web,” said Forbes.

“It is because of this that we are able to put out more content. Ninety-eight per cent of our content doesn't appear in our magazine. Our early embrace of the Web has resulted in us having 20 million unique visitors a month and the number is growing in terms of usage. Our affiliated sites receive five million to six million visitors,” says Forbes.



Apart from having its own staff of journalists, Forbes also has 800 contributors for its website chosen by its channel contributors.

“No one is doing it on a scale as we are. The bottom line is, we believe the entrepreneurial class is growing around the world. That's what people want to know. The Web has enabled us to do things with more versatility and flexibility,” says Forbes.

On Money

Though born into money in Morristown, New Jersey, Forbes displayed from an early age that ink did run through his veins as he showed an aptitude to run a publishing business.

Graduated cum laude in 1966 from Brooks School, Massachusetts, Forbes, while studying at Princeton, founded his first magazine, Business Today, with two other students. Business Today is currently the largest student-run magazine in the world.

When asked what he loves more journalism or business and investing Forbes simply says he loves both but is quick to note that money is not everything.

“It is an effort for reward. It is a means of doing transactions. It is a facilitator and gives us the ability to invest for the future. Money puts things in a proper perspective,” he muses.

His first memory of money was as a small boy who never had enough allowance for toys and candies. Forbes had to complete his chores to earn money.

Image via Wikipedia

“So, my effort for reward was established at a fairly young age. To get money, you have to meet the needs and wants of other people. Sometimes you have to give them things they didn't know they wanted. The key thing is creativity. Money doesn't just come to you,” he says.

He believes, though, that people have to invest. That is key.

“If you look around the world today, there are great equity opportunities. It is precisely in terrible times like these that you can get enormous bargains.”

He adds that the time to get into the market is when everyone is getting out. “You do it when the clouds and storms are there. When the storm is gone, everyone will see what you saw,” says Forbes.

He cites the period between the late 1970s and the early 1980s when the global economy was in a troubled state. It started to sputter and then recovered in the late eighties. Between the 1990s and and the early part of the 21st century, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had grown 15-fold.

“The wealth of the world has increased. We've had great advances in technology and what's holding us back is the convulsions and distortions in the US dollar. I think when we get a new president, that will change. If we can get through the next one-and-a-half years, I think reforms will be made and better times are coming,” he said.

On Europe's debt problems, Forbes says Europe's woes will persist in the short term especially if the Europeans continue with their “incompetencies in handling the crisis”.

“Europe should be doing what we did in the United States in 2008. They should be having their own Troubled Asset Relieve Programme. If necessary, pump capital into banks. That is why they bail out countries like Greece, not because Greece is important, but because their banks are holding Greek papers and bonds. Hence, Europe has to focus on shoring up its capital,” he said.

He believes though that the axe would have to fall on some of Europe's banks and that Europe needs to have a programme where it does not let the good banks go down with the bad.

“Europe has to restructure its debts, instead of pretending Greece can pay those loans. They cannot. Restructure the debts. Don't just focus on austerity. You also focus on growth to make sure the economy grows again. Greece is now increasing taxes, which is the dumbest thing you could do. They should reform tax code, put in the flat tax. They should also make it easier to set up businesses in Greece,” he argues.

Principles in life

Forbes says an important thing in life is to have an ability to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, and he has three “F” principles faith, family and friends to maintain an everyday balance.

“The best thing was to have parents who already owned a successful business. My father used to say that nepotism doesn't matter as long as you keep it within the family!” Forbes says with a laugh.

“In my workplace, I am blessed to be in an area where I have always wanted to be in. It must be in the genes. When I was in school, I turned out newsheets for my classmates. I also graded my teachers. I thought, if they can give me grades, why can't I grade them too? That only lasted once!” he jokes.

Forbes likes riding his bicycle and has done trips to various parts of the world with groups of people. He likes London, Paris and various places in Italy. In Asia, he likes the coastal cities in China and some in the interior as he can feel the growth and energy there. He is amazed by what Singapore has done.

His hobbies include collecting old letters and manuscripts of noteworthy individuals Sir Winston Churchill and the writings of obscure British writer John Goldsworthy.

For young entrepreneurs, Forbes has one advice: focus on value adding. The focus should be on providing something people want, or did not know they wanted before.

“You can find it even in the most common areas. Take Starbucks coffee, for instance. Everyone drinks coffee. Anyone can make it and grow it. They still serve it for free on the airlines and yet, how did Starbucks do so well? They did it differently, serving up the Viennese coffee experience,” explains Forbes.

On his political ideologies

Forbes has no qualms voicing his disapproval of US President Barack Obama. Forbes would like to see a new president who can deliver true economic growth and a stable dollar. He says the problem of the weak dollar, which started under George W. Bush, was compounded by Obama.

“We should be in a recovery by now, but instead we are like an automobile going at 10km per hour. We should be going at 120kph,” says Forbes.

Some of Obama's measures that he doesn't agree with include the binge spending and the healthcare bill.

“The healthcare bill is a disaster, which will be repealed in 2013 when the new president comes in. Obama's massive regulations are crushing the banks. And his regulations on energy he is very anti-coal, very anti everything except for windmills, which is a very medieval technology. He has not reformed the tax codes and wants to raise taxes,” says Forbes.

On Obama's recent job stimulus package, Forbes says this is spending money the United States does not have.

“Governments do not create jobs. Entrepreneurs do. He does not understand that,” says Forbes.

For his pick for president, Forbes is leaning towards Republican Governor Rick Perry. He likes Perry's record as Governor of Texas and his success in creating jobs.

“He did not raise taxes, kept the budget under control and has also put in reforms,” says Forbes.

In 1996 and 2000, Forbes campaigned vigorously for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

On why he ran twice as a presidential candidate, Forbes felt there was a vacuum in the field of candidates as more opportunities should be given the people. And his experience from that? “Its more fun to win than to lose!”

Over the next five to 10 years, Forbes hopes to be doing more of what he is doing today, which is trying to influence positive policies to enable his country and the world to grow.